4.  The applicant was born in 1982 and lived in Novocheboksarsk before the arrest.
5.  On 20 November 2008 the applicant was remanded in custody on suspicion of rape.
6.  Between 22 November 2008 and 7 September 2009 the applicant was held in remand prison IZ-77/3 in Moscow. The parties submitted differing information about the material conditions of his detention.
7.  The applicant claimed that the facility was overcrowded. Cell 517, in which he stayed throughout his detention, measured 24 sq. m and accommodated up to twelve inmates. Walls were mouldy and the lavatory pan was not separated from the rest of the cell. Ventilation did not function; no toiletries were distributed and the bedding was ragged. The food was of low quality. The detainees were allowed to take a shower only once per week. In support of his allegations, the applicant submitted two identically‑worded statements by his cellmates, who – without further detail  – declared that they “fully support[ed] Mr Istratov’s complaint to the European Court”.
8.  The Government submitted a number of certificates issued by the director of remand prison IZ-77/3 on 18 June 2012, which demonstrated that the applicant was held in four cells having the following characteristics:
It follows from the certificates that the applicant was provided with bedding and toiletries and afforded daily one-hour-long outdoor exercise, a weekly shower and access to washing facilities. There was forced ventilation and artificial lighting in the cells. In addition, the windows were not covered by shutters, allowing natural light to penetrate into the cells, and were equipped with a small opening pane that provided access to fresh air. Lavatory pans were separated from the rest of the cells by a brick partition and were located two metres away from dining tables. In addition, all four cells were equipped with a water tap with hot and cold running water. Heating was provided during the winter season.
9.  The Governement also submitted copies of the prison population register which covered two weeks out of each month during the period of the applicant’s detention and presented the following information about the numbers of sleeping places in the cells and their actual occupancy:
10.  It appears that the applicant complained to the Moscow city prosecutor about the conditions of his detention. In his reply of 14 December 2010 the prosecutor acknowledged that “not every detainee was afforded the [statutory] standard of four square metres due to overpopulation of the prison”.
11.  Some time later the applicant brought a civil claim for compensation in connection with inadequate conditions of detention in remand prison IZ‑77/3. On 7 June 2012, the Khoroshevskiy District Court of Moscow examined the claim and held that:
“According to a prison population certificate issued by the director of remand prison IZ-3 of Moscow, cell 608 measures 34.02 sq. m and is equipped with 12 sleeping places. Cell 207 measures 31.17 sq. m and is equipped with 14 sleeping places. Cell 517 measures 37.75 sq. m and is equipped with 12 sleeping places and cell 510 measures 13.45 sq. m and is equipped with 4 sleeping places.
It follows from the case file that Mr Istratov was always provided with a separate sleeping place and that the number of detainees never exceeded that of sleeping places.
...
It was established ... that the applicant’s argument about the overpopulation of the cells he had been held in, [affording as a result] less than 4 sq. m per person, had been substantiated.
However, considering that Mr Istratov did not complain that he had been afforded personal space below the sanitary standard (4 sq. m) ... and was always provided with a separate sleeping place ... the court considers it appropriate to reject Mr Istratov’s claim.”
12.  On 12 May 2009 the Khoroshevskiy District Court of Moscow found the applicant guilty and gave him a custodial sentence. The applicant appealed, complaining about an erroneous interpretation of law and improper assessment of evidence by the District Court.
13.  On 12 August 2009 the Moscow City Court upheld the conviction on appeal.
14.  On 21 April 2009 the applicant lodged the first letter with the Court, briefly stating that he was detained in remand prison IZ-77/3 of Moscow, that his Convention rights were violated, and asking the Court for an application form.
15.  By letter of 29 May 2009 the Registry sent the application form to the applicant, requesting to return it by 24 July 2009 at the latest and informing him that failure to comply with the instruction could have impact on the date of introduction of the complaint.
16.  On 4 December 2009 the applicant submitted the completed application form which reached the Registry on 7 January 2010.